LAWS(MPH)-2018-3-89

KIRLOSKAR BROTHER LTD. Vs. RAMCHARAN

Decided On March 09, 2018
Kirloskar Brother Ltd. Appellant
V/S
RAMCHARAN Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner-establishment has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, taking exception to the order of the Industrial Court dated 5.2.2004 passed in Appeal No.289/MPIR/02, setting aside the order dated 14.3.2002 passed in case No.25/MPIR/97 by Labour Court, Dewas and granting reinstatement to the respondents-workmen with a finding that there was employer- employee relationship between petitioner and respondents and they were terminated from service otherwise than as a punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary action tantamounting to illegal retrenchment for want of payment of retrenchment compensation.

(2.) The respondents filed an application under Sections 31(3) read with Section 61/62 of the M.P. Industrial Relations Act, 1960 (for short "MPIR Act") in the Labour Court, Dewas inter alia contending that for the last three years, they were working in the petitioner-establishment under the supervision of one Baba Thakur and after completion of service for more than six months continuously, they attained the status of permanent worker in the establishment. They have had unblemished service record. On account of their satisfactory services, petitioner-establishment had deducted P.F., and ESI contribution and deposited the amount in their respective accounts with the authorities concerned. To their surprise, by an oral order dated 7.10.1996 through Supervisor Baba Thakur, the services of respondents were terminated w.e.f. 8.10.1996. The respondents-workmen were not allowed to enter the premises and since then, new appointments have been made in their places.

(3.) Petitioner-establishment filed its reply denying the relationship of employer and employee with the respondents; instead, submitted that though they worked in the petitioner-establishment but as contractual employees of Contractor Baba Thakur. However, it has been admitted that there was P.F. and ESI deduction by the petitioner- establishment in respect of respondents-workmen.